On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 3:18 AM, Alex Shinn <[email protected]> wrote: > On Sun, Oct 16, 2011 at 11:44 PM, Jussi Piitulainen > <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Do all these need to remain in the language? In (scheme base)? > > We should put them somewhere for compatibility, but > I definitely think everything but the one and two depth > combinations should be removed from (scheme base). > Their use is generally a code smell. People should > use destructuring, records, or SRFI-1 first..tenth accessors.
Is this a case where common practice among Scheme implementation is the functions are no longer valued so they are going away? _______________________________________________ Scheme-reports mailing list [email protected] http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports
